311 
Notes on the Uropodinse. By A. D. Michael . 
borne by a raised chitinous ridge parallel to, and some little way 
within, the lateral margin of the abdomen on each side. This ridge 
stops at the so-called shoulder, but the line of hairs, after a short 
break, continues aT round the cephalo thorax, and there are some 
scattered similar hairs on the flat of that part of the body. 
I originally suggested that it was possible that the great chitinous 
blades which project over the second legs might be more or less 
flexible, but I find they are not so. 
The first pair of legs are provided with caruncles and claws, which 
however are both small. 
It will be seen from pi. VII. fig. 3 that the mandibles are not in 
the form most' usual in the genus Uropoda. 
Some information relative to the internal organs of this species 
will be found later in this paper (p. 3 1 4). 
Sir John Lubbock sent me this species in 1881, but I never was 
able to find any specimens myself until the autumn of 1892, when I 
found a considerable number in the nests of Lasius Jlavus near the 
Land’s End, Cornwall. 
As the creature has not ever been figured I have thought it well 
to give a plate of it. 
Binychus perforatus Kramer. 
Binychus perforatus Kram., “ Ueber Milben n (2nd paper of that title), 
Archiv. fur Naturgesch., 1886, p. 255. 
Celseno inermis ? Can., ‘ Prospetto dell’ Acarofauna Ital.,’ pt. i. 1855, 
p. 101. 
There seems to me to be some confusion about this species, and it 
is difficult to say for certain what is the synonymy. The following 
are the facts. In 1881 Berlese, in a paper on the life-histories of 
Gamasidse,* treated of a species which he called Traehynotus inermis , 
identifying it with the Sejus inermis of Koch.f I do not see why it 
should have been supposed to be Koch’s species, I should say that it 
is not so. It is frequently impossible to identify Koch’s species with 
any certainty, and probably would be so in the present instance ; but 
Koch described his species as highly polished, whereas Berlese’s is 
covered with conspicuous perforations and is not polished ; and Koch 
describes and draws his species as having two longitudinal sulcations 
on the dorsal surface, extending the greater part of its length, and 
Berlese’s species does not show a trace of these ; as, however, Berlese 
placed his creature in a different genus his specific name of “ inermis ” 
might stand if the creature were new, although it might not be Koch's 
“ Sejus inermis .” The genus Traehynotus cannot stand, having been 
used before Kramer, as explained in the classificatory part of this 
* “II polimorfismo e la partenogenesi di alcuni Acari (Gamasidi),” Bull, Soc. 
Ent. Ital., 1882, fasc. 1, and Archives Ital. de Biol., t. ii. fasc. i. 
f 4 Deutschlands Crustaceen,’ &c., fasc. 39, fig 20. 
